Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the palindromic-trolls-and-freudian-typos dept

We've got a tight cluster of top comments this week, with all four of the winners-by-vote coming from just two posts. Up first is our runaway champion of the week: an anonymous commenter who took Most Insightful by a wide margin, and also eked into the first place Funny slot by a few votes. Both of these were well-earned with one of the best comments in recent memory, responding to our post about the Internet Archive offering up records of free TV news programs. We wondered whether the project would meet the definition of "limited" that is required for the special copyright exception it seems to be leveraging, and this AC chimed in with some quippy legal analysis:

The Supreme Court said in Eldred v. Ashcroft that copyright terms can be retroactively extended to absurdity, and remain "limited" as per the constitution. By similar logic, it is mathematically certain that the Internet Archive is making available a limited number of copies. =)

Up next, we've got a different anonymous commenter responding to the notorious bob, one of the more... um... unique detractors hanging around Techdirt. Bob showed up on our post about Hachette's increased prices for libraries to go on an anti-library screed, with a list of supposed "FAILS" to be found in the post. This garnered quite a few responses, the top-voted of which took apart bob's argument piece by piece:

Let me start off by saying your comment is more full of fail/stupid than any comment you've written to date. So on to putting your brand of idiocy in it's place.

"The only reason this blog likes libraries is because they offer a story line that helps the legal status of Big Search."

No, bob, the reason this blog likes libraries is because they offer anyone the opportunity to enrich themselves freely. You can check out a book and read it for free. You can go use their computers to do work. You can take your children for summer reading programs.

Basically, they provide a valuable service. One which the PUBLIC has no problem with. Hence the whole "public library" thing.

"FAIL#1: Libraries are the classic gatekeeper. No one reads anything unless the librarian buys it."

Oh my god. Only you would have the gall to call a library a gatekeeper. They are not gatekeepers. And I don't think you know what that word means. I'm not going to discuss this point further, but suffice it to say "YOU FAIL" on it.

"FAIL #2: Libraries take by force. No one chooses whether they participate in a library or not. The tax collector grabs the money from you whether you go or not. It doesn't matter whether you can't read or don't want to read, the library takes your money."

Libraries DO NOT take by force. Libraries are a public place/service. The tax collector also uses your tax dollars on parks, roads, schools, etc. Do you personally have children? Because I don't, yet my tax dollars go to funding public education. See what I'm getting at here? We all pay for things that are for the public good. But in no way are libraries directly taking money from my wallet against my will.

bob, I said it last week and I'll say it again, maybe YOU should go to a public library. Grab a few books, newspapers, etc and start fucking learning a thing or two. Your stupid scares me.

"FAIL #3: Libraries are anti-green. You've got to go to get the book."

And what do you think movies and cds are? You've got to go to the theater, you've got to go to Big Retail (as you'd put it) to purchase the physical discs, etc. And what about getting the products out to the market? Shipped using Big Trucking. Etc.

Again, this is another point that is so retarded I can't believe you tried to use it as a mark against libraries.

"FAIL #4: Librarians love their form of DRM. You want to lend a library book to a friend? You can't do it. You've got to bring it back and let them relend it."

Digital rights management (DRM) is a class of access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale.

That is the definition of DRM. In no way do libraries have DRM with the exception of their ebook offerings, and their use of DRM is done basically through force and at the behest of the publishers, otherwise they (the publishers, actual gatekeepers) will withhold content.

But you can still lend out a book. You can either do it by returning it and letting your friend check it out. Or, by handing it over to your friend anyway. There's no library police spying on you 24/7 to make sure you don't lend it out. It goes against the spirit of things but there's no one preventing you from doing so.

"FAIL #5: Librarians don't believe in anonymous lending. You've got to register to take out a book and you better live in the right neighborhood."

No, you don't have to live in the right neighborhood. Using my library card I can check out anything from any public library in all of South Texas. I don't live in all of South Texas. I live in one city, in one county. Yet I can check anything out from any other city in any other county (even some that are hours away).

And the whole point of "registration" is to get a library card. That's it. So it's not some nefarious thing to prevent anonymity.

"FAIL #6: Librarians sleep. The Internet is a 24 hour invention."

Jesus christ. I'm ignoring this "brilliant" point as well. Someone else deal with the stupid on this one.

But just fyi, there are libraries online. And by that I mean actual public libraries. You can check out or reserve content in advance and pick it up as soon as they open. So while you may not be able to go to your local library 24/7, you are free to access their content in a manner of speaking 24/7. For some that is. But slowly more libraries are going "online".

"There's no way around the simple economics. If you're going to share a book with N people, you've got to charge N times more to maintain the same revenue. If we're going to pay authors at the same level as before, we've got to raise library prices."

bob, there's no difference between a physical book and an ebook. Especially as it pertains to libraries. X amount of people will check them out. But the sale has been made. Or donation. You can't charge more for one than the other. It makes no sense. Especially when one is a digital file that cost next to nothing to produce.

"So we've got a choice: cheaper books with something like a Kindle or some odd forced communism where we spend a tax dollars for books we might not like. I"ll take the Kindle and its simple way of rewarding the authors who people like."

Wtf? Did you just bring up communism in an ebook price hike on libraries brought about by publishers? Seriously, seek professional help. You've got some serious issues.

I'm done with you. I think I'm going to see if I can get my brain scrubbed. I fear your stupidity may have destroyed more brain cells than all the alcohol I've drank in my life ever has.

And please. Like you'd use a Kindle. That's made by Big Hardware, and it's core operating system is built upon an OS provided by Big Search. Not to mention the fact that Big Retail (Amazon) is "forcing" you into their DRM system. Or were you not aware that Amazon uses proprietary formats to get you said content?

God I hate you. When the hell can we get Lion Day going, because some "brilliance" needs to be culled before it further spreads among the gene pool. Please, DO NOT HAVE KIDS. I'm aiming that at you bob.

...and that's all that needs to be said about that. For Editor's Choice on the insightful side, we'll start with a comment on our post about Peter Hirtle's look at some examples of copyright insanity like pre-1978 TV shows and even a letter from 1755 that is still under copyright. Peter himself showed up in the comments to offer some additional details:

I want to thank Mike Masnick for bringing my article to the attention of his Techdirt readers. It is clear from some of the comments here that either commentators haven't read it or I was unclear in my writing. I may have assumed that everyone knew that the rules for copyright pre-and post-1978 are radically different, but I should have been clearer about this.

Many commentators asked about the copyright status of television shows. Most pre-1978 court cases said that the performance of a television show did not constitute publication. This is currently embedded in copyright law in 17 USC 101. Selling a program to a network would probably not constitute an offer to the public, and so no publication would occur. The program would, however, be protected by state common law copyrights until such time as the copyright owner authorized publication, at which point the Federal copyright clock would start running. In the case of Star Trek, the first episode was broadcast n 1966, but it was not published with notice until 1978. It was not necessary to register a copyright to receive copyright protection, but Desilu Studios did do so, noting a publication date of 1978. As a work created before 1978 and first published between 1978 and 2003, this episode of Star Trek is subject to the copyright term specified by 17 USC § 303: 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

State common law copyrights, BTW, were perpetual, which is why the copyright owner of the Adams letter could authorize its publication in the 20th century and receive the full 95 year term on the letter.

Hey... with another retroactive copyright extension or two, we could get Star Trek to fall into the public domain after the year the show is set in!

For the second Editor's Choice, we've got AJ on our post about the Amanda Palmer volunteer musician kerfuffle. One thing a lot of people seem to be forgetting in that debate is that Amanda does employ a bunch of musicians and other creative professionals—so the stance of the detractors is not so much "we think she should pay" as "we think she should pay slightly more than she is". AJ highlighted this, plus the fact that the money she's now paying to musicians
had to come from somewhere:

Someone must have lost out, although we don't know who that was. If most of the money to pay the musicians came from the video budget maybe they're paying for fewer camera operators, or they'll be do less work in post-production so the result might be less polished. I'm not trying to find out the full details, but to imply that nobody has lost out because of the change is obviously incorrect.

Now on to the Funny! We've already seen the First Place winner, and in second place we've got another comment on our post about Hachette prices, from another anonymous commenter. This AC decided to highlight the absurdity of treating digital content like physical goods:

You fail to mention the recent eFont crop shortage due to the hot summer we had. That's the real reason for costs to spike. Just wait until eFont crops get back to normal.

I'd rather be optimistic: assume the typo was on the White House's end, and while we're thinking this is a draft of the actual order, it's actually intended as an example to staff of how not to deal with cybersecurity issues. I look forward to a leak of the "Sensible Executive Order".

Reader Comments

Let's go to the library! Yeah!

That reply to Bob about libraries (I didn't catch the writer's name) was brilliant! No wonder it got the votes!

When I was a kid, the library was my favourite place to go because it had lots of books and tapes (remember those?) that we could borrow. Yes, you had to return them, but you could always get more if you wanted to. Or even the same ones again.

[sarc] Whoops, I better stop living in the 1980's and remember that libraries are evil places now [/sarc]

Re: Let's go to the library! Yeah!

That reply to bob was written by myself.

And while I rarely visit the public library anymore, it too was my favorite place to go as a child. And yeah, I remember tapes. Heck, I still carry my library card in my wallet (just in case the urge strikes me to go in and check something out).

Also, while I seldom visit anymore, I do regularly donate to my favorite local library. I've been doing so ever since I was a child. They owe their entire Goosebumps collection (as well as every other R.L. Stine series written) directly to me. (Although I donated anonymously. I just showed up with boxes of books with "donations" written on the side, left it on the counter and walked out. I even threw in quite a bit of Michael Crichton, among other things. I was a voracious reader, my age meant nothing to me and I read anything and everything I could.)

Thinking about it now, I've amassed an even larger collection of books as an adult. Most of which I also have in ebook format on my computer and Nook Color. I think it's time to go drop off the boxes I have stored in my closet.

Oh wait. I'm donating freely to my local library. Someone might be enriched by my donation. Shoot. I'll have to be careful. Don't want to have my home raided. Heaven forbid I provide literary enjoyment to others, with no fees attached and in a manner where no authors (or better said publishers) get any monetary compensation.

Just to save time...

-NOTHING MATTERS BUT THE MORAL ISSUE, AND NOT FOCUSING ON THE MORAL ISSUE IS NOTHING BUT AVOIDING THE MORAL ISSUE AND PIRATE APOLOGISM!

-AND YET ANOTHER POST FUNDED BY BIG SEARCH, AND WRITTEN BY BIG SEARCH, AND POSTED BY BIG SEARCH, AND PROBABLY GOING TO BE MADE INTO A 100 MILLION DOLLAR FILM ADAPTION BY BIG SEARCH, AFTER WHICH IT WILL BE STOLEN WITH THE HELP OF BIG SEARCH.

-I TOTALLY AGREE/DISAGREE WITH THE POST HERE AND AM TOTALLY NOT A SPAMBOT SO PLEASE CLICK MY NAME THAT IS A LINK TO ANOTHER SITE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS BLOG.(Apologies to any non-spambot people who fall into that category coincidentally)

-YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE YOUR WRONG, AND I KNOW YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG!

There, now that I believe I got all the usual troll arguments out of the way, could we get on with actual on-topic comments and discussions, or at least keep the trolling contained in replies to this post for convenience?

Re: Re: Just to save time...

If so, please, provide links and examples, otherwise I have to assume you're just falling into the last category.

Also, I know to trolls the 'kool-aid' line is supposed to be the epitome of wit, but could you lot at least try to come up with something new? Honestly, every time I see that line it's like running across an adult who still thinks that calling someone a 'butthead' is not only a brutally effective insult, but also doubles as a valid counter-argument.

Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

The strawman is the "hard paywall", because even Marcus goes on to show how it's not a hard paywall, but rather a "limited full feature demo". Nobody was kept out.

It's a strawman because almost nobody does an absolute hard lock out from the word go. Even Adobe will give you 30 days to try out their software (with a price tag much higher than a couple of bucks for a video game).

I suspect that he would actually have to work pretty hard to find a game that is actually 100% hard paywall, with no demo, no try before you buy, etc.

The rest of it is that he spends the rest of the post whining about how much better it would be if they did a sort of "give it away and pray" or what have you. It's the old "do it our way".

You can also go look at the various Ubisoft posts for more of the same. "Do it our way, idiots!".

For the MPAA or RIAA, just search Techdirt in general. There are so many stories with so many strawmen in them, it's shocking that the barn hasn't burned down!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

I suspect that he would actually have to work pretty hard to find a game that is actually 100% hard paywall, with no demo, no try before you buy, etc.

Well, a demo isn't 'try before you buy,' either. Sure, the games look pretty and neat in a video on a machine built just to run that game, but that isn't the same as what's sitting in front of you, is it? I'd guess you'd have to be pretty daft to think a demo video qualifies as less than a hard paywall.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

For accusing other people of using strawman arguments... you're first example is exactly that. Far as I can tell, a 'hard paywall' is simply a point in a program/game/whatever where you either pay, or are completely unable to continue using it.

A '30 day trial, and if you don't pay once that's over the program refuses to work' would indeed be a hard paywall in that case, as regardless of the fact that you were able to use it for free for 30 days, once the trial is over, you either pay to continue or stop using the product.

The definition that you seem to be using, where you cannot test something at all, no demo or anything, without paying for it... yeah, you're right that almost nobody would do that. You know why? Because unless the company that pulled something like that had some amazing credibility and a solid history of putting out amazing products, no one would take the risk of buying their product without testing it first.

Regarding your 'he spent the rest of the time whining', claim, that would seem to fall into the category of an ad hom attack, in an attempt to dismiss what was actually posted, that being a number of quotes from game designers/developers/companies, and some side commentary on said quotes.

While the 'give it away and pray', or 'freemium' model was mentioned, it was also mentioned as being only one possible way to do things.

As well it's a proven fact that the 'give it away and pray' model you seem so dismissive of can, and has worked. TF2 is a perfect example of this, where a completely free to play game still managed to snag a solid 2 million in the first year after the in-game store was launched.

With regards to the Ubisoft comment, that would be another strawman argument coming from you. If the general gist of articles about Ubisoft had a 'do it our way idiots' theme to it then yeah, that would be uncalled for, and you might actually have a point there. They are not however, so you don't.

To be accurate, articles regarding Ubisoft that pop up here tend to be pointing out the idea of 'attacking and annoying your customers is a bad business decision, and a good way to lose customers'. That's not telling someone 'do it our way idiots', that's telling them 'if you continue on like you are, you're going to go out of business'.

Now, that said, considering the behaviors being warned against, the term 'idiot' would actually be appropriate here. It does after all take a pretty thick skull to think that inconveniencing your paying customers, treating them like crap, and then treating the people who actually stick around afterwards even worse, is a good idea. So yeah, I'd safely say that anyone who acts like that would qualify as an 'idiot'.

And finally the last 'point' regarding the *AA's. I'm sorry to say, but your definition of 'strawman arguments' is yet again dead wrong.

It is not a strawman argument to point out when a group abuses their power.

It is not a strawman argument to point out when said group acts in a manner that is bad for both themselves, and society in general.

It is not a strawman argument to point out when a given group is blatantly corrupt, and corrupting, with proof to back up such claims.

It is not a strawman argument to call a given group out on the obvious lies and repeatedly debunked 'facts' they present to forward their own agenda.

To quote the great sage Inigo Montoya, 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

"A '30 day trial, and if you don't pay once that's over the program refuses to work' would indeed be a hard paywall in that case, as regardless of the fact that you were able to use it for free for 30 days, once the trial is over, you either pay to continue or stop using the product."

Ahh, you are pulling a Mike. Ignoring all the lead up, all the soft time, all the sale time, all the "free to use time" and concentrating on the moment when it's no longer free. A hard paywall would be "buy it or don't". A soft system has a demo, trial, or other part to it.

Further, it's not a paywall anyway - it's just the price to purchase.

"The definition that you seem to be using, where you cannot test something at all, no demo or anything, without paying for it... yeah, you're right that almost nobody would do that. You know why? Because unless the company that pulled something like that had some amazing credibility and a solid history of putting out amazing products, no one would take the risk of buying their product without testing it first."

Yes, and this seems to be the strawman pushed. The suggestion is that people are doing something, and then proving why it is wrong - while in fact they aren't doing it. "try before you buy" has been common for a very long time, it's not an "on the internet" thing. It's old hat.

"To be accurate, articles regarding Ubisoft that pop up here tend to be pointing out the idea of 'attacking and annoying your customers is a bad business decision, and a good way to lose customers'. That's not telling someone 'do it our way idiots', that's telling them 'if you continue on like you are, you're going to go out of business'. "

If you can't catch the one of "do it our way, idiots" you really need to learn to read better. What they are doing is telling a company that selling 300 plus million US a year in goods, and saying "you are doing it wrong for a small percentage of users". It's where it gets a little hard to swallow, because the writers tend to act as if Ubisoft isn't selling anything because they are too stupid to get out of their own way. They don't seem to want to acknowledge the hundreds of millions of satisfied customers.

"And finally the last 'point' regarding the *AA's. I'm sorry to say, but your definition of 'strawman arguments' is yet again dead wrong. "

Your opinion. It's wrong, but it's your opinion.

It's not pointing things out, it's holding them to a higher standard than you hold anyone else, and then getting upset when they fail.

It's so blatant that you have to be willfully blind not to realize. Go check out today's "judge slams copyright troll" missive to see how it works - the judge that ruled against was "too old to understand" yet this same age judge is some pillar of great understanding. The age of the judge in each case is a misleading argument, but is only applied on one side when someone is desperate to find something to slam.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

Oh Marcus, fuck off. Small error, why dwell? Are you that petty of a twerp that you can't address the points, and instead must get stuck on small mistakes?

There is no edit function on here for us plebs, only for people like you. I am guessing you edit yourself often enough.

Just stop wasting your time trying to be a jerk, you do a good enough job already without the extra effort.

Oh, how is your musical career coming along there? Did you get a break from your copyright supported old world dinosaur newspaper print job long enough to work on ripping off other people's music, or did you finally wise up and give up?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

Honestly your kind loves to point out the littlest and smallest error you can find and bring it out to make it a big deal. So what? If it's something small that could be fix, then fix it and don't deal with it any further. Continue to make it a big deal, and you're going to look like an idiot over arguing over a stupid point.

... And I fail to come up with something witty to say for the rest of your comment. It just screaming at me to hit a wall for just how stupid you are.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

Just stop wasting your time trying to be a jerk, you do a good enough job already without the extra effort.

Oh, how is your musical career coming along there? Did you get a break from your copyright supported old world dinosaur newspaper print job long enough to work on ripping off other people's music, or did you finally wise up and give up?

Re: Re: Just to save time...

Re: Just to save time...

and mike you never told us your position about patents and copyrights yet. what do you have to hide and why are you being so secretive. you want everyone else like all the politicians to be all transparent but where is your transparency mike.

Re: Re: Just to save time...

cross out the word again, mike never explained his position on anything. he just likes to rant about everything but never tells us his position. you know why. he's a thief and he just wants everything for free.

Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

"You look really, really stupid"

all of the other pro-IP shills look really stupid so why should i bother looking smart. if they all look stupid then so should I.

btw, please tell my boss how stupid i look. i'm trying to compete with all the other shills on the grounds of stupidity but they all seem to be doing better than me. i try but those pro ip extremists are hard to compete with, they are dumb!!!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

oh, and I just realized that you outdid me with the stupidity again. instead of recognizing my second post as an addendum to my first you thought that i was talking to myself. that's why you get the big bucks. i guess i must work even harder at being stupid and not making any sense like the rest of the stupid pro-ip shills. thanks for the tip though, i hope you don't have it patented. next time someone adds to his original post i'll act as dumb as you by claiming they look stupid for talking to themselves. its an awesome tip for looking dumb.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

I don't think your real name is Marcus. I just think you are a total suck up toady fraud, who spent the longest time here behind a fake name. You only revealed your real name (is it your real name?) when Mike started paying you for your services as a toady.

I don't worry about it. I laugh at it.

How's the newspaper business? Still paying your bills from that old dinosaur of a business?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to save time...

I don't think your real name is Marcus. I just think you are a total suck up toady fraud, who spent the longest time here behind a fake name. You only revealed your real name (is it your real name?) when Mike started paying you for your services as a toady.

Says an Anonymous Coward who doesn't even have the balls enough to use a unique name so his past remarks cannot be held against him.

So I'm a subversive influence now...

Fortunately I don't think that subverting an expectation is prosecutable. Unless Hollywood has managed to copyright it, which, given some of the heavily-promoted turkeys that have come out over the years, might just be possible.